Helios Stellar ii binoculars.

[Alfian]

These seem to have arrived on the market a bit unheralded unless I've missed something. 

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/helios/helios-stellar-ii-70mm-wp-binoculars.html

They have the look of the Apollos but clearly not an Apollo price. It would be interesting to know what they are like.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

They do look very similar, even down to the 10.5x and 15x70 spec. Haven't seen a review yet

[Star Struck]

Thanks for highlighting their existence.

They may yet prove to be a viable alternative to the Apollos.

Must keep our eyes peeled for any reviews.

[Alfian]

Mmmm comparing them side by side on screen they look very alike but specification wise (weight, fov etc) they are much more like the BA3 Quantum 4s - so I'd be cautious as to how in reality they could be a viable alternative to the Apollos. Curious though. Perhaps the nice guys at FLO could shed some light on them?

[BinocularSky]

I'll see if I can get hold of some to review. :-)

[BinocularSky]

Thanks to Steve at TBS (FLO) I have today received the 10x50 and 15x70 to review. Given the Moon and the predicted weather, it could be a while before a proper review, but here's some first impressions and comparisons ot my BA8s (Helios Apollo 15x70 & Oberwerk Ultra 10x50):

* S-II are considerably lighter and physically smaller, especially noticeable with the 15x70, compared to the BA8. It seems to be in body thickness; optically similar in lens sizes. (I'll post comparison photos when I've done them)

* S-II have more foldable eyecup depth, but the BA8 has much deeper eyecups:effectively this gives better eye relief for spectacle wearers to the S-II

* BA8 coatings are better; the S-II reflects noticeably more light from a torch shone down the big end.

* S-II makes no claim (on the box or cover plate armour) about prism glass, but it appears to be high-index glass (no grey segments),

* S-II has noticeably undersized prism: one black segment each side; especially noticeable in the 10x50.

* Both S-II are ether full aperture or close to it (I'll measure properly when I do a review).

* The S-II appear to have "proper" prism mounts, although different to those in the BA8 (so also not like BA3/Q4, which don't).

* Both S-IIs have captive objective covers.

* Field flatness, pincushion distortion & CA seem similar (but really need to do sharpness and CA with astro objects) (only 10x50s compared)

* Identical instruction sheets and cleaning cloths!

I hope that whets the appetite  a bit...

[Alfian]

Indeed it does Steve and thanks for your efforts, I had looked on the United Optics web site to try to match them but they do not seem to "fit" any range shown. It seems that they are not just re-dressed BA3s but something in-between the BA3 and BA8 which would no doubt warrant the price. Anyway, enough of this speculation it will interesting to see what your closer analysis reveals.

[BinocularSky]

 I had looked on the United Optics web site to try to match them but they do not seem to "fit" any range shown.

Yup, I did the same, with exactly the same (non-)results. Steve (TBS/FLO) said that he's been told that they were mechanically the same as the BA8 but with different optical coatings. I can confirm the latter; but I think "mechanically similar" might be more accurate.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Seems a big price difference for just a difference in coatings. Mechanically the same doesn't make sense, because they are much lighter, unless some much lighter alloy was used (which would push the price UP I would guess)

[BinocularSky]

I think that, in this context, "mechanically" might refer to the mechanisms. They are definitely structurally very different.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think that, in this context, "mechanically" might refer to the mechanisms. They are definitely structurally very different.

They are both porros with individual focusing?

[BinocularSky]

They are both porros with individual focusing?

Possibly a bit more in common... just need this cloud & rain to clear enough so I can try them at night...

[BinocularSky]

After a really frustrating morning with a new toy (OT for this forum), I started packing up at about 04:30 as the sky became overcast. By the time I'd finished packing up, it was completely clear again; 10x50s (Stellar 2 & BA8) out for a hand-held comparison. Constant battling with cloud that just kept forming and disappearing, but I have managed to glean the following:

* The relative lightness of the S2 is obvious after half an hour or so.

* The better control of stray light in the BA8 is obvious on Sirius, Jupiter, Venus, but only obtrusive on Venus.
* BA8 slightly more contrasty.

* Couldn't make up my mind if the BA8 is actually brighter or just more contrasty. It's subtle, but M67 & NGC1981 looked slightly "richer" in the BA8.

* The size of the sharp FoV is as near as I could discern identical (about 4* diameter within which I could see no image deterioration), as was the sharpness within that sharp bit.
* Not sure why, but I found precise eye placement more difficult with the S2. This could well be one of those "personal" things that may not affect many (if any) others.

* Eyepiece focusing on the S2 is too loose for my liking; I kept accidentally changing it, e.g. when putting rainguard caps on when swapping binos.

* The objective caps on teh S2 stay in better than those on the BA8.

Still need to do some "proper" tests, but initial impression sare that the S2 probably represents good VFM.

More to come when I get another clear patch.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Thanks for that Steve!

[Alfian]

Many thanks Steve for your persistence against the usual weather gremlins. Its a bit of a surprise that some of the differences between the two binos are so "subtle"  though I can understand the niggles with  S2 IF slip. The BA8 IFs certainly don't move once set. Lets hope the weaher improves - It will be interesting how it all pans out.

[BinocularSky]

Not much more done (weather!), but did some daylight comparisons today. Here.

[Alfian]

Thanks, as always for your tine and efforts Steve. The differences in the coatings are interesting - the green Apollo coatings leap out. It will be really interesting to see how it all pans out in observations. With the weather the way it is I think we will have to be very patient.

[Mark at Beaufort]

I certainly want to upgrade my current Celestron 15x70 binos which are still well collimated and gave excellent astro views this year in Yosemite. So I have fancied the Apollos as the upgrade because I like the idea of being able to use UHC or O-III filters. However, I will wait for Steve's review before making the purchase.

[BinocularSky]

At last! Sorry it's taken so long, but the skies here have been dire for months, it seems. Finished testing just over a week ago, and have just got around to writing it up. The review is on my reviews page.

[Alfian]

Thanks for the review Steve, the time, effort, expertise is much appreciated. I keep playing with the idea of some 15x70s or larger. Long eye relief I am finding is high on my list of requirements (I think the Apollos are a bit marginal) so the Stellar ii looked promising. The full 70mm aperture is a nice surprise but individual focusers that move when you don't want them to is a bit unfortunate. The BA8 set and forget IF are so useful, Still, inevitably you tend to get what you pay for. Thanks again and have a happy and healthy 2016.